TEEEDOM NATIONAL-SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 



STEECII 



OP 



HON. JOHN J. PERRY, OF MAINE, 



ON THE 



COMPARATIVE NATIONALITY AND SECTIONALISM OF THE 
REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC PARTIES; 



DELIVERED 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAY 1, 1856. 



THE HOUSE BEING IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON THE STATE OF THE UNION. 



WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 
1856. 






i 



FREEDOM NATIONAL-SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 



The House being in tlic Committtc of the Wliolc on the 
state of tlie Union — 

Mr. PERRY said: Mr. Chairman, in the dis- 
cussions tlmt havo taken place upon tliis floor, and 
at various other places in the Union, the Republi- 
can party has been charged with "sectionalism." 
The authors of this groundless assumption have, 
in the same connection, boasted of the nationality 
of the Democratic party. These two propositions 
I now desire to discuss. 

Prior to the meeting of the Thirty-Third Con- 
gress, the country was enjoying a remarkable 
state of repose. The waves of agitation, which 
in former years had rolled over the country, had 
abated their fury, and ceased to disturb the peace 
or threaten the perpetuity of the Union. The 
discordant political elements had become qui- 
eted, and universal peace and almost unexampled 
prosperity reigned throughout the States. The 
people, a few months before, passed through a 
presidential contest, and elected to the executive 
chair of the nation a son of New England by an 
overwhelming majority. 

General Pierce accepted the nomination upon 
a platform which declared : 

"The Democratic party will resist all attempts at renew- 
ing in Congress, or out of it, the agitation ot the slavery 
question, wider whalcver shape or color llie attempt may be 
wade." 

The President, at the opening of Congress, 
declared, in the most emphatic terms, his determ- 
ination to carry out the principles upon which he 
was elected. In hia message he says: 

" But notwithstanding differences of opinion and senti- 
ment, which then e.visled in relation to details and speeilie 
provisions, the acquiescence of distinguished citizens, 
whose devotion to the Union can never be doubted, has 
given renewed vigor to our institutions, and restored a sense 
of repose and security to the public mind throughout the 
Conli-dcraey. That this repose is to suffer no shock during 
my olfieia! term, if I have power to avert it, tliose wlio 
placed me here may be assured." 

The last Congress had been in session only a 
few months before the country was startled with 
the unexpected rumor, that an old time-honored 
compact, which was originally entered into to 
avert the most threatening dangers, and which 
had been most n ligiously lived up to for more 
than thirty years, was to Le ru;liii.ssiy abrogated. 
The sequifl is too well known to need an ex- 
tended notice. Leading incn in the Democratic 



party, in utter violation of their past profeasiona, 
forced into Congress the most violent, fearful 
s/nrej-y agitation that ever distracted this country. 
President Pierce repudiated his pledges, trampled 
under foot the platform upon which he was 
elected, turned his back upon the friends that 
had elevated him to power, and used tin; whole 
force of his Administration to carry on this agita- 
tion, and expose the vast regions of Kansas and 
Nebraska to the inroads of African slavery. The 
deed was done. 

Slavery agitation, thus reopened in its most 
violent form, was not long confined to the Halls 
of Congress. It went out and s]iread all over 
the country, kindling up the raging fires of inter- 
nal discord in every direction. The people be- 
came alarmed, and aroused themselves in their 
lion strength to meet the impending danger. 
Through all the free States they resolved that 
" forbearance had ceased to be a virtue, and that 
they would resist the outrage in the peaceable, 
constitutional way of settling such questions — at 
the ballot-box. This inaugurated a new politi- 
cal era. With a patriotism worthy of the men, 
and the cause which incited it, the freemen of the 
North laid aside their old party predilections, gave 
a paramount importance to the great issue forced 
upon them, and in almost every instance gave 
those members of Congress who had voted for 
the Kansas-Nebraska bill leave to stay at home. 
Only seven members from the free States, out of 
the whole number who voted for this measure, 
have found their way back to the present House. 
The repeal of the Missouri compromise has 
completely broken down old party distinctions. 
The old Whig parly, once mighty and powerful, 
and which in limes past has had intellectual giants 
for its leaders, scarcely has a name in any State, 
North or South. The once glorious old Demo- 
cratic party has been stabbed in the house of its 
friends; and, after retreating before the surging 
waves of popular indignation, can now only be 
foimd around the shades of the presidential man- 
sion, or in little squads about our custom-houses, 
post ofiices, and such otlicr places as are dispensed 
executive favors, in the shape of " loaves and 
fishes." Asa national parly, it has no longer 
an existence. The c^usi-s, to which a brief allu- 
sion' has been made, have created the necessity for 
another party. That party has been iuaugu- 



rated ; and as its principles are but the revival of 
the doctrines of the immortal Jefferson and the 
republican fathers, it is pel-feclly natural and 
proper for it to assume the time-honored name of 
" Republican." 

As I announced in the commencement of these 
remarks, I shall now attempt to show that the 
Republican party isa ?ia<(o?irt/party; that it stands 
upon a platform of principles eminently national; 
and that no national man, North or South, East 
or West, can, with any show of consistency, 
refuse to stand upon it. 

The Republican party, through its delegates at 
Pittsburg, on the 22d of February last, adopted 
an address, containing a " declaration of its prin- 
ciples and purposes," which has been published 
to the world, and which is briefly summed up as 
follows: 

" We declare, in the first place, our fixed and unaltered 
devotion to the Constitution of the United States— to the 
ends for which it was established, and to the means which 
it provided for their attainment. We accept the solemn 
protestation of the people of the United States, that they 
ordained it ' in order to form a more perfect Union, estab- 
lish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the 
common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure 
the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.' 
We believe that the powers which it confers upon the Gov- 
ernment of the United States are ample lor the accomplish- 
ment of these objects ; and that if these powers are exer- 
cised in the spirit of the Constitution itself they cannot lead 
to any other result. We respect those great rights which 
the Constitution declares to be inviolable — freedom of 
speech and of the press, the free exercise of religious belief, 
and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to 
petition the Government for a redress of giievances. We 
would preserve those great safeguards of civil freedom, the 
habeas corpus, the right of tri.il by jury, and the right of 
personal liberty, unless deprived thereof for crime by due 
process of law. We declare our purpose to obey, in all 
things, the requirements of the Constitution, and of all 
laws enacted in pursuance thereof. We cherish a profound 
reverence for the wise and patriotic men by whom it was 
framed, and a lively sense of the blessings it has conferred 
upon our country and upon mankind throughout the world. 
In every crisis of difficulty and of danger we shall invoke 
its spirit a7id proclaim the supremacy of its authority. 

"Jn the next place, we declare our ardent and unshaken 
attachment to this Union of American States which the 
Constitution created and has thus far preserved. We re- 
vere it as the purchase of the blood of our forefathers, as 
the condition of our national renown, and as the guardian 
and guarantee of that liberty which the Constitution was 
designed to secure. We will defend and protect it against 
all its enemies. We will recognize no geographical divis- 
ions, no local interests, no narrow or sectional prejudices, 
in our endeavors to preserve the union of these States 
against foreign aggression and domestic strife. What we 
claim for ourselves we claim for all. The rights, privileges, 
and liberties which we demand as our inheritance, we con- 
cede as their inheritance to all the citizens of this Repub- 
lic." 

Now let me candidly ask if there is anything 
sectional in the sentiments contained in the above 
declaration .' If there is, then the whole country 
has been laboring under a delusion ever since our 
Governmcntwas formed. But, to be more specific, 
it is not to be denied, that the great leading idea 
of the Republican party is the non-exlension of 
slavery, in other words, opposition to its extension 
into free territm-y. This is no new dogma. The 
heroes of the Revolution, the patriots of the early 
times, who shaped and fashioned our political 
institutions, entertained the same views, and in- 
corporated them into their political action. They 
believed chattel slavery to be a great moral, social, 
and political evil. So believing, they adopted 
every practicable mode in their power to prevent 
its spread; at the same time looking forward to 



the day which should witness the fruition of their 
earnest hopes— its total abolition. To place this 
matter beyond all doubt or cavil I will refer to 
a few well-authenticated historical facts, in proof 
of the position here assumed. 

George Washington, in a letter to Robert 
Morris, dated Mount Vernon, April 12, 1786, 
said : 

"I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes 
more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abo- 
lition of it, [slavery ;] but there is only one proper and 
eflectual mode in which it can be accomplished, and that ia 
by legislative authority ; and this, so far as my suflrage will 
go, shall never be wanting." — 9 'Sparks''s Washington, 158. 

In a letter to John F. Mercer, September 9, 
1786, he expressed the same sentiment: 

" I never mean, unless some particular circumstances 
should compel nie to it, to possess another slave by pur- 
chase, it being among my first wishes to see some plan 
adopted by which slavery in this country may be abolished 
by law." — Ibid. 

And in a letter to St. John Sinclair he further 
said : 

" There are in Pennsylvainia laws for the gradual aboli- 
tion of slavery, which neither Virginia nor Maryland have 
at present, but which nothing is more certain tlian they must 
have, and at a period not remote." 

Thomas Jefferson, in an able article on the 
rights of the American colonies, by him prepared 
and laid before the Virginia Convention which 
assembled in August, 1774, for the purpose of 
appointing delegates to the proposed Congress, 
remarks as follows: 

"■The aholition of domestic slavery is the greatest ob- 
ject of desire in these colonies, where it was unhappily 
introduced in their infant state. But, previous to the en- 
franchisement of the slaves, it is necessary to exclude 
further importations from Africa. Yet our repeated attempts 
to efli'ct tliis by prohibitions, and by imposing duties which 
might amount to prohibition, have been hitherto defeated 
by his Majesty's negative ; thus preferring the immediate 
advantage of a few African corsairs to the lasting interests 
of the American States, and the rights of human nature, 
deeply wounded by this infamous practice." — American 
Archives, 4th Series, vol. 1, p. 696. 

Mr. Jefferson further declared his own senti- 
ments in liis Notes on Virginia, when he said: 

" Nobody wishes more ardently than I to see an aboli- 
tion not only of the trade, but of the condition of slavery ; 
and certainly nobody will be more willing to encounter any 
sacrifice lor that object." 

In the same work he further said; 

"The whole commerce between master and slave is a 
continual exercise of the most unremitting despotism on the 
one part, and degiading submission on the other." * * 
* * " With what execration should the statesman be 
loaded, who, permitting one halfof the citizens thus to tram- 
ple on the rigiits of the other, transforms those into despots 
and these into enemies, destroys the morals of the one part, 
and the amor patriae of the other ! Can the liberties of a 
nation be thought secure, when we have removed their 
only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people 
that these liberties are the gift of God.'' That tliey are not 
violated but by his wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my 

COUNTRY WHEN I REFLECT GoD IS JUST, AND IJIS JUSTICE 
CANNOT SLEEP FOREVER." 

In the convention which framed the Constitu- 
tion, Mr. Madison declared he" thought it wrong 
to admit into the Constitution the idea, that there 
could be property in man. " (3 Madison Papers, 
1429. 

Gouverneur Morris said he "never would 
concur in upholding domestic slavery; it was a 
nefarious instittUion; it was the curse of Heaven 
on the States where it prevailed." (3 Madison 
Papers, 1263.) 

Mr. Gerry thought the convention " had noth- 



ing to do with the conduct of thu Stntt-s as to 
shu't'S, but ouf^lit to be rnroful not to jrivc any 
sanction to it." (3 Madison Pajicrs, 1394.) 

INlr. Mason, of Vir<::inia, said " .-slavery dis- 
courages arts and manufactures. The poor de- 
spise labor when performed by slaves They 
produce ilic most niTnicious efiects on manners. 
Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. 
Tiiey brins; the jud<:;nieMt of Heaven on a coun- 
try.'"' (.'l iNladison Papers, Kl'Jl.) 

Mr. Ellsworth, of Connecticut, said "slavery 
in time will not be a speck in our country." (3 
Madison Papers, 13i)2.) 

Mr. Sherman, of Connecticut, said "he was 
opposed to a tax on slaves, because it implied 
thiy were propcity.'^ (3 Madison Pajiers, 139G.) 

Mr. Williamson said "that boili in practice 
and opinion lie was against slavery." (3 Madi- 
son Papers, 1428.) 

Similar views were expressed l>y other mem- 
bers. In the conventions of the States, called to 
ratify the Constitutiim, similar opinions were 
expressed by the leading men in the same. I will 
only refer to a few of them. 

James Wilson, of Pennsylvania, had been a 
leading member of the convention-, and in the 
ratification convention of his Statu', when speak- 
ing of the clause relating to the power of Congress 
over the slave trade after twenty years, he said: 

" I consider this clause as laying tlie foundation for ban- 
ishing slavery out of this couiiiry ; and tlimiiili the period is 
more distant than I could wish it, il will produce the same 
kind, gradual change as was produced in Pennsylvania." 

* * » * >t 'I'lie „<;,(, st;ites vvhicli arc to be formed will 
l)e under the control of Congress in this particular, and 
slavery will never b^introduced among them." — 2 Elliot's 
Debates, 4.')2. 

In another place, speaking of this clause, he 
said: 

'■ It presents us with the ploasins prospect tliattlic rights 
of mankind will be acknowledged and established through- 
out ihe Union. Jf there was no other lovely feature in the 
Constitution hut this one, it wonlil (lilfuse a beauty over its 
whole countenance. Yet the lapse of a few years, and 
Congress will have power to exterminate slavery from 
within our borders." — 2 EllioVs Debates, 484. 

In the ratification convention of Massachusetts, 
General Heath said: 

'• The migration, or importation, &c., is confined to the 
Stales now cxi.-ting only; new States cannot claim it. 
Congress, by their ordinance for creating new States, some 
tnne since d' clared, that the new States shall be republican, 
and that there shail be no slavery in tlieia." — 2 Elliot's 
Debates, llo. 

Nor were these views and anticipations con- 
fined to the free States. In the ratification con- , 
vention of Virginia, Mr. Johnson said: i 

" They tell us that they see a progressive danger of bring- 
ing about entancipation. The principle has begun since the 
Revolution. Let us do wliat we will, it will come round. 
Slavery has been the foutidalion of much of that impiety 
and dissipation which have been so much disseminated 
among our countrymen. If it were totally abolished, it 
would do much good." — 3 Elliot's Debates, 6, 48. i 

But I will not consume further time to prove 
this point, i)ut will only add an extract from a 
speech delivered by Mr. Leigh in the convention 
of Virginia, in 1832, which fiilly corroborates the i 
truth of this position. He said: | 

" I thouL'ht, till very lately, that it was known to every- | 
hody that, tUirin'^ the Revolution, and for many years after, 
the abolition of slaveiy was a favorite topic with many of 
our ablest slalesmeii, who entertained with respect all the 
schemes whieh wisdom or ingenuity could suggest for its ! 
accomplishment." ; 



TIic founders of tlie Government not only left 

.their testimony as individuals upon the (piestion 
of slavery, liut their well-known opinicju.s were 

' iiicorporiitcd into the Constitution and legislation 
' of tlie country. 

To go back to the Declaration of Independence, 
we find Washington, and Jeflerson, and i'Vniik- 
lin, and Shernian, and Pinckney,and lh".ir illus- 
trious compatriots, solemidy Kul)Beril)in2; their 
names tolhe.se " self-evident truths, that all men 
are created equal; that they are endowed by their 
Maker with inherent and malicnaijle rights; that 

, among these are life, libcrtv, and tlie pursuit of 
happiiiess." 

The Constitution itself is a great chart of lib- 
erty. Nowhere in it can be found tlic word 
" slave," or " slaves," so careful were its found- 
ers to give no implied sanction to the traffic in 

j human beings. In its very commencement — in 
its preamble, it declares — 

"The I'KOi'i.E of the iri\itcd States, in order to form a 
more perfect Onion, establish justice," ♦ • • i< pro- 
mote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of lib- 
erty," * * * "do ordain and establish this ConstUu- 
tioii." 

In the same mstrument it is declared — 
" Ifo person shall be deprived of life, lilicrltj. or property, 
without due process of law." — ^imeiulment, Jlrt. .5. 

There is another provision contained in the 
Constitution, which for the last ten years has 
been the subject of warm discussion both in and 
out of Congress. I mean that provision wiiich 
gives Congress " power to dispose of and make 
all needful rules and regulations respecting tlie 
territory, or other property belonging to the 
United States." In this connection, I do not 
propose to go into a discussion of the question, 
whether Congress has conslilutional power to 
interdict slavery in the Territories of the United 
States; but shall here content myself with show- 
ing how the framers of the Constitution under- 
stood it themselves. 

On the 1st of March, 1784, Congress voted to 
accept of a cession from the State of Virginia of 
what was subsequently known as the North- 
i west Territory. On the same day, Mr. Jc.'fTerson, 
I from acomniittee consisting of himself, Mr. Chase 
I of Maryland, and Mr. Howell of Rhode Island, 
reported a jilan for the government. This plan 
embraced all the Western Territory, and all ter- 
ritory ceded or to be ceded by individual States 
to the United States. (See Journals of Congress, 
J April 23, 1784.) One of the provisions of said plan 
I is as follows: 

" That after the year 1800 of the Cliristi.in era there shall 

be neither slaver}' nor involuntary servitude in any of the 

(■aid States, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes 

! whereof the party shall have been duly convicted to have 

j been personally guilty." — 1 Jour. Cong. Con/eii.,374. 

I Territories were in this article of the ordinance 

j spoken of as States, because it was contemplated 
to erect the Territories into Slates. Under the 
Articles of Confederation a majority of the thirteen 
States was ivccessary to an affirmative decision 
of any question. On the 19th of April a vote was 
taken on this proviso. The vote stood for the 

i proviso — 5ixStates, viz: New Hampshire, Massa- 
chusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, 
and Pennsylvania. Against it — three States, viz; 
Virginia, Maryland, and South Carolina. Dela- 
ware and Georgia were not represented. New 

I Jersey by Mr. Dick voted ay, but her vote, only 



6 



one delegate being present, could not be counted. 
North Carolina was divided — Mr. Williamson 
voting ay, and Mr. Speight no. From Virginia 
Mr. Jefferson voted ay, and Messrs. Hardy and 
Mercer no. Of the twenty-three delegates present, 
sixteen voted for, and seven against — thus this pro- 
viso was defeated by a minority vote. The people 
were for it, and the States for it; but it failed by 
a provision which enabled the minority to control 
the majority. 

In the same year, Mr. Rufus King, of Massa- 
chusetts, moved the proviso in the following 
form : 

" That there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary 
servitude in any of the States described in the resolves of 
Congress of the 23d of April, 1784, otherwise than in the 
punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been 
personally guilty ; and that this regulation shall be an article 
of compact, and remain a fundamental principle of the con- 
stitutions between the thirteen original States, and such of 
the States described in the said resolve of the 23d of April, 
1784."— 4 Jour. Cong. Confed., 481. 

This was committed by a vote of two to one, 
and resulted in the celebrated ordinance of 1787, 
which expressly prohibited slavery and involuntary 
servitude, except for crime, throus;houl the whole ter- 
ritory [then belonging to the United States] for- 
ever." This proviso received the votes of every 
delegate (with a single exception from New York) 
in the convention. The First Congress under 
the Constitution ratified the ordinance of 1787. 
In the convention which framed the Constitution 
there were twenty men who were also members 
of the First Congress under the Federal Consti- 
tution. This proves very clearly that they un- 
derstood that Congress /iac/ power, under the Con- 
stitution which they themselves had made, to 
prohibit slavery in the Territories. 

Thus history vindicates the fact, that the 
patriots of the Revolution, the members of the old 
State Confederation, the members of the conven- 
tion which framed the Constitution, andthe mem- 
bers of the First Congress after the adoption of 
the Constitution, entertained the same sentiments 
upon the questions of slavery extension and re- 
striction that are now advocated by the Repub- 
lican party. 

But I will not stop here, but proceed to prove 
that the views of the Republican party on the 
constitutional right of Congress to prohibit sla- 
very in the Territories are sustained by the legis- 
lation of Congress from the meeting of the First 
Congress up to 1848, and that such legislation 
has received the sanction of every President, 
with a single exception, beginning with General 
Wasliington up to, and including, President Polk. 
To maintain this proposition I shall introduce 
facts direct from the records of the Government: 

1. The ordinance of 1787 was recognized by 
chapter one, firstsession of First Congress. There 
seems to have been no oljjectionto it. Mr. Mad- 
ison's name appears on the Journal of the pro- 
ceedings the same day it passed. He was, no 
doubt, present, and concurred in the measure. 
The act was signed by General Washington. 

2. On the 7th of April, 1798, an act was passed 
authorizing the establishment of a government in 
Mississippi Territory. It authorized the Pres- 
ident to establish therein a goverinnent similar to 
that in the territory northwest of the Ohio river, 
excepting the Jefferson proviso of 1787. It then 
prohibited the importation of slaves from any 



place without the limits of the United States. 
This act passed about ten years before Congress 
was authorized by the Constitution to prohibit 
bringing slaves into the States which were origin- 
ally parties to the Federal compact. This act 
passed under the administration of the elder 
Adams. 

3. At the first session of the Sixth Congress, 
chapter forty- one, laws of 1800, an act was passed 
creating a territorial government for Indiana 
out of the Northwest Territory — reaffirming the 
ordinance of 1787 — and was signed by President 
Adams. 

4. On the 26th of March, 1804, an act was 
passed dividing Louisiana into two Territories, 
and providing that all that part of the Territory 
south of the thirty-third parallel of latitude, now 
the southern boundary of Arkansas, should be 
erected into the Territory of Orleans. In this 
act there are three provisions in respect to slavery 
in the Territory: First. The importation from 
any place without the limits of the United States 
was prohibited; Second. The importation from 
any place within the United States of slaves im- 
ported since the 1st of May, 1798, was prohibited; 
Third. The importation of slaves, except by a 
"citizen of the United States removing into said 
Territory for actual settlement, and being at the 
time of such removal bona fide owner of such 
slaves, "wasproliibited. This is one of the strong- 
est cases on record to show the control of Con- 
gress over slavery in the Territories. It was a 
direct prohibition of the domestic slave trade. 
This act was signed by President Jefferson. 

5. On the 11th of January, 1805, an act was 
passed establishing the Territory of Michigan, 
reaffirming the ordinance of 1787. 

6. On the 3d of February, 1809, a similar gov- 
ernment was established for the Territory of Illi- 
nois, recognizing the same ordinance. These two 
last acts were under the administration of Jeffer- 
son. 

7. On the 4th of June, 1812, an act was passed 
providing for the government of the Territory of 
Missouri, and the laws and regulations in force 
in the District of Louisiana were continued in 
operation. 

8. On the 3d of March, 1817, a government 
was formed for the Territory of Alabama, and 
the laws then in force within it as a part of Mis- 
sissippi were continued in operation. These acts 
were passed under Mr. Madison's administra- 
tion. 

9. On the 9th of March, 1819, the Territory 
of Arkansas was formed froin the Territory of 
Mississippi, and a government established for it. 

10. On the 6th of March, 1820, the inhabitants 
of Missouri were authorized to form a State gov- 
ernment, and slavery prohibited in all that part 
of the Territory north of 36° 30' north latitude. 

11. On the 10th of March, 1822, a territorial 
government was established for Florida, con- 
taining provisions making it unlawful " to import 
or bring into the said Territory, from any place, 
without the limits of the United States," any 
slave or slaves. These three acts were signed by 
Mr. Monroe. 

12. On the 20th of April, 1836, an act was 
passed establishing the territorial government of 
Wisconsin, reaffirming the ordinance of 1787. 
This act was signed by General Jackson. 



13. On the 12ih of Juno, 1838, a territorial 
govi'rnmont for Iowa was cstablishoil, cxiendinK 
the laws of the United States over the same, and 
signed by Mr. Van Kurcn. 

14. On the 3d of March, 1848, an act waspa.ssed | 
establishing the territorial govcrnnieiit of Oregon, 
with the proviso forever proiiibiting slavery in • 
the same. This act was signed by Mr. Polk. 

Here is an almost uninterrupted series of le- , 
gislntive acts, commencing with tlie first Congress, ^ 
and running through tin- long neriod of more 
than half a century, containing tlie official sanc- 
tion of Washington, Adams, Jelferson, Madison, 
Monroe, Jackson, Van Buren, and Polk, direct- 
ly recognizing the constitutional right (if Con- 
Sress to prohibit slavery in the Territories of the 
fnited States. 

Thus the legislation of the General Government 
for more than half a century furnishes a prece- 
dent, in strict conformity with the platform of the 
Republican party, on the right of Congress to 
interdict slavery in the national domain. If, then, 
the Republican party are to be denounced as sec- 
tional on account of entertaining and defending 
these time-honored doctrines, then the revolution- 
ary heroes were sectional — the signers of the 
Declaration of Independence were sectional — that 
immortnl instrument was itself sectional, the 
framers of the Constitution were sectional, and so 
is the Constitution itself. Every President of the 
United States, from Washington to Polk, were 
sectional; and nearly all legislation of Congress, 
in the formation of Territories for over fifty years, 
has been of the same sectional character. 

Mr. Chairman, 1 now desire to call the atten- 
tion of the committee and the country to another 
leading idea in the Republican platform, to wit : 
The SUBSTANTIAL restoration of the J\Hssouri com- 
promise. I have now no time to go into a histori- 
cal detail of the circumstances that originally led 
to the adoption of this act of Congress in 1820; 
neither is it necessary; for the facts connected 
with the admission of Missouri into the Union 
are now pretty well understood. It is sufficient 
for my present purpose to remark that, after one 
of the most stormy periods of excitement through 
which this country ever passed, it was solemnly 
agreed that Missouri should be admitted into the 
Union with a constitution allowing slavery; and 
that all territory which had been acquired by 
purchase from France, north of 360 30', should 
DC forever free. The parties to this arrangement 
were the free States on tlie one side, and the 
slave States on the other. The prohibition north 
of 36° 30' was both absolute and perpetual. I now 
propose to give some reasons why this contract 
should be restored in substance, if not in form. 

1. Because the repeal of the Missouri compro- 
mise was a breach of good faith. Each section 
of the Union had become a party to this contract. 
It became a matter of national honor. The North 
and the South had both agreed to it. Each party 
was not only bound by a solemn act, but there 
was an implied pledgeof honor, incidentally con- 
nected with the act, of which the parties could not 
divest themselves. 

2. The South received the consideration coming 
to them paid in hand. The contract was rati- 
fied; and, with the ratification, Missouri was 
admitted. This repudiation is the more insulting 
to the North, from the fact that, just as soon as 



' the consideration assigned her in this compact 
become of any value to her, she ^ah cheated out 
of it. Good faith, fair play, and hon.stdealingH, 

]| all require the restoration of the contract. 

3. "rhis compact was abrogated under false 

'' pretenses, and in its practical operation was a 
fraud upon the people. This will appear for two 

I' reasons: 

Ij First. At the time the Kansas-Nebraska bill 

i! was under consideration, it was declared over and 
over again, both in and out of Congress, that 

1 slavery never would go into any part of these 

'. Territories. This pretext was used na an argu- 
ment to quiet the excited feelings of the people, 

|i and reconcile them to the outrage. Charity would 
j leave us to presume that no mi'iiiber of Congress 

I would make such an assumption and send it to the 
I country, unless he believed it. If so, no greater 

' mistake could have been made. In looking over 

!j the debates in the Senate upon the Nebraska 

I bill, we find such opinions were expressed by 
I Mr. Pettit, of Indiana; Mr. Hunter, of Virginia; 

■' Mr. Toucey, of Connecticut; Mr. Thomson, of 

' New Jersey; Mr. Brodhead, of Pennsylvania; 

j Mr. Badger, of North Carolina; Mr. Everett, of 
I Massachusetts; Mr. Douglas, of Illinois; Mr. 

I Dixon, of Kentucky; Mr. Jones, of Tennessee; 
' and General Cass, of Michigan. 
I In the House, the advocates of the bill gene- 
rally said the same things. These declarations 
were sent all over the country, and had their effect. 
They were retailed out with great gusto by all 
the office-holders of the Administration, from the 
highest in grade and employment to the four and 
six penny postmasters and tide-waiters. The 
barrier of freedom was stricken down; and what 
then become of all their pompous assumptions? 
Slaveholders went into Kansas, carrying with 
them their slaves. The first Legislature elected 
under the organic law of the Territory, by slave- 
holders and " border ruffians" — a Legislature, 
the laws of which the friends of the Administra- 
tion say are legal and binding — laws which the 
President has threatened to enf'orce at the mouth 
of the cannon and the point of the bayonet , enacted 
and placed upon the statute-book of the Territory 
a law, declaring — 

" If any person print, write, introduce into, or publish, 
or circulate, nr cau^e to be brou-jlit into, priiiK-d, written, 
published, or circulated, or shall knowingly aid or assist in 
bringing into, printing, publishini?, or circulatins, within 
this Territory, any book, paper, pamphlet, nia;;azine, hand- 
bill, or circular, containing any statements, argument, 
opinion, sentiment, doctrine, advice, or inucndo, calculated 
to produce a disorderly, dangerous, or rebellious disaffection 
among the slaves of this Territory, or to induce such slaves 
to escape from the service of their masters, or to resist their 
authority, he shall be guilty of a felony, and be punished hj 
imprisonment at hard labor, for a term not less than fire 
years." 

i Here is another section of this barbarous statute : 

j " If any free person, by speaking or writing, assert or 
maintain that persons have not the right to hold slaves in 

1 this Territory, or shall introduce into this Territory, print, 
publish, write, circulate, or cause ^o be introdiiecd into this 
Territory, written, printed, published, or circulated, in this 

' Territory, any book, paper, magazine, pamphlet, or cir- 
cular, containing any denial of the right of persons to hold 

' slaves in this Territory, such person shall be deemed guilty 

! of felony, and punished by imprisonment at hard labor for 

I a term not less Uian two years." 

In the "Squatter Sovereign," a newspaper 

published at Atchison, in Kansas Territory, by 

; Stringfellow & Kelly, and which ia receiving tlie 



8 



patronage of President Pierce and his Adminis- 
tration, under date of February 19, 1856, I find 
the following advertisement: 

"For Sale. — A very likely Negro Girl ten years old. 
Apply at this office. Feb. 18, '56. 50 4w" 

We prove here by one of the Administration 
organs — which, by the way, lauds Pierce and the 
Democratic party to the skies — that slavery not 
only exists de facto in Kansas, but that little negro i 
girls are publicly advertised and sold in that Ter- 
ritory. ] 

I will give one more specimen of the barbarous 
code of the " border ruffian" Legislature, which I 
is designed to corrupt the very fountains of justice 
and establish and perpetuate slavery in this Ter- 
ritory: 

" No pertJon who is conscientiously opposed to holding 
slaves, or who does not admit the right to hold slaves in 
this Territory, shall sit as a juror on the trial of any prose- 
cution for any violation of any of the sections of this act." 

Thus facts prove that the argument that, on 
account of soil, climate, or other reason, slavery 
would not go into Kansas in consequence of the 
repeal of the Missoiu-i compromise, was all a de- 
lusion; so far as it had an influence, it every- 
where deceived and cheated the people. 

Another reason urged with great vehemence by 
the advocates of the Nebraska bill in favor of the 
measure, was this; that it would " establish the doc- 
trine of pojndar sovereignty," Rud give the people of 
the Territories the right to form and regulate their 
own domestic institutions. I have now no time 
to go into an extended argument to show the utter 
fallacy of this specious pi-etense, this false light, 
held out to blind, bewilder, and cheat the people 
into the support of a measure abhorrent to all 
their better feelings. 

But I will call the attention of the committee to 
one or two facts, which go to prove, beyond all 
controversy, that the friends of the bill, while 
they declared when the same was under consider- 
ation, that the bill would confer upon the people 
of the Territories the right to legislate upon the 
question of slavery in the sa.me, meant no such thing; 
they were looking one way and rowing another; 
that while they were pretending to confer certain 
rights, they were forcing a bill through Congress, 
the very object of which was to deprive them of 
any such power. 

Now to the proof. "When the Kansas bill was 
under consideration in the House, an honorable 
member from Indiana [Mr. Mace] offered the 
following amendment: 

" And the Legislature of said Territoi-y is hereby clothed 
with full power, at any session thereof, to establish or pro- 
hibit slavery." 

This amendment was rejected — ayes 76, noes 
94. (Cong. Globe, vol. 28, part 2, p. 1238.) 

Another amendment to said bill was offered by 
one of my honorable colleagues, Mr. Fuller, 
which reads as follows: 

" And the Territorial Legislature shall have power to 
establish or exclude slavery, as to them shall seem proper." 

In offering this amendment, my honorable col- 
league said: 

" This bill has been advocated at the North solely upon 
the ground that itgives the people of the Territory the right 
to legislate for themselves upon the subject of slavery while 
in a territorial state. I declare myself here to be the friend 
and advocate of that doctrine ; and it is because this billrfoes 
not establish this great American principle, and vindicate 
this doctrine, that I am opposed to it in its present state. 
Now, sir, I wash my hands of any attempt to deceive tliein 



upon this vital point in the bill. My constituents shall not 
be deceived by me." — Cong. Globe, vol. 28, part 2, p. 1239. 

My honorable colleague put the only reason- 
able, legal construction upon said bill that it 
would bear. This amendment, too, was voted 
down. 

In further proof of the position 1 am now 
considering, I will cite the thirty-second section 
of the " act to organize Kansas and Nebraska." 
The phraseology of this section is peculiar. It 
was artfully drawn; and, while it pretends one 
thing, means quite another. It first undertakes to 
extend the " Constitution " over the Territory by 
declaring that — 

"The Constitution, and all laws of the United States 
which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same 
force and effect in said Territory of Kansas as elsewhere 
in the United States, excepting the act preparatory to the 
admission of Missouri into the IJnion." 

Who ever before heard of such a monstrous 
absurdity? Congress, who derive all their power 
to act /»-o»i the Constitution, here undertake to 
extend this great fundamental law of the land 
over a Territory within the jurisdiction of the 
United States. When did ever a Congress under- 
take before to legislate the Constitution into a Ter- 
ritory? Never, sir; never. No such provision 
was ever contained in any previous act organiz- 
ing a Territory: hence,by fair reasoning, Oregon, 
Washington, Utah, New Mexico, and Minnesota, 
are all left without the protection of the Constitu- 
tion; and Congress can have no jurisdiction over 
them, for the reason that that branch of the Gen- 
eral Government derives all its power to legislate 
from the Constitution; and the only legitimate 
conclusion which follows is, that these Territo- 
ries are each now so many independent sovereign- 
ties, owing allegiance to no power but themselves. 

After declaring the Missouri compromise " in- 
operative and void," the same section goes onto 
say: 

" It being the true intent and meaning of this act, not 
to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, or to exclude 
it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free 
to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own 
way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." 

The deception lies in this — that, while this act 
professes to make a certain grant of power to the 
people of the Territories, it contains a proviso 
which, according to the southern sectional con- 
struction given it by the Democratic party, en- 
tirely takes it away. 

The argument to this: The Constitution is the 
great fundamental law of the United States. 

To make the fraud less perceptible, by a sort 
of extrajudicial legislation the Constitution is 
extended over the Territory. The grant of power 
here is made " subject to the Constitution," which 
is anotherpiece of extra-judicial legislation. Then 
follow out the southern construction — that the 
^^Constitution allows slaveholders to carry their 
slaves into the Territories, and there protects them in 
that kind of property," and you have the whole 
thing in a nutshell. Of course the people of a 
Territory cannot make a law contravening the 
Constitution. Thus it is plain that the act was 
intended, not to give " popular sovereignty," but 
to take it away; and, by a forced construction of 
the Constitution, /egts^t^e slavery into the Territory 
of Kansas. In order to show that I am treating 
this matter fairly, and do not misrepresent our 
Democratic friends, I will read from remarks ofj 



««M 



an honorable member from Ponnsylvunin, [Mr. 
J. Glanct Jonks,] niado in answer to ccrtnin ' 
interrogatories }iro|)oun(li'(l to liini by an liomn-- j 
able gentleman from Kenliicky, [Mr. Cox,] prior 
to the orKaniz.alioi) of tlu' House. From the j 
acknowledged talents and liii^li siauiiinj^ of the 
honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania — from 
the fact that he was the author of the resolution.s ' 
ado{)ted i)y the first Demorraliccnueuaofmemliers 
of the House, and is a distinguished leader of ! 
tliat parly — I feel justified in drawing the infer-' 
ence that he truly reflects the opinions of that 
party. 

In answer to certain questions propounded by 
the gentleman from Kentucky, as to the legality 
of the territorial laws of Kansas, he snid: | 

" In my npiiiinii, llie I'niistitutidii limili llie power ofCon- I 
rress to tlie extern (il'proliibiliii!: Uiein either Iroin cstuhti^h- \ 
mi; or aholuihins slaviTy in the Territories. Adniitliii!; th:il 
view to be correct, I suppose it follows, as u matter of 
course, that the ("onsliliilioii of the United States confers 
upon the people of the Territory no ri|iht to dispossess any I 
man of Ins right to property, whether it be slave or any [ 
other property. And thcretbre, the Legislative Council of a , 
Territory, lliniigl) they may pass laws rcnnlating tlie dis- ! 
posal and protection of properly, have nori^ht to so admin- 
ister thost; laws as to establish or abolish the right to hold 
that property." 

Another honorable member, cx-GovcrnorSmith, 
of Virginia, in the same debate, said: 

" If I had supposed there was any one opinion more uni- 
versal than any other in the t?oulli, it was the opinion that 
8 territorial government, while it remained in a state of 
infancy, has no power either to admitor to prohibit slavery 
within its limits. I say that this Congress, this Government, 
having no right or power whatever to admit slavery or pro- 
hibit it in the Territories, has no right or power to delegate 
tjiat jwwer to the Territories themselves." 

A distinguished Senator from Mississippi, (ex- 
Governor Brown,) a few days since, in a speech 
ill the Senate, said: 

" It will be seen at once that the line of argument which 
I have marked out for myself will lead me to consider, to 
some e.\tent, the doctrine of 'squatter sovereignly.' This 
doctrine, however well designed by its authors, has, in my 
judgment, l>een the fruitful source of half our troubles. 
Before the people of the two sections of the Union having 
— as they supposed, though 1 think erroneously — hostile 
interest, and already inflamed by angry passions, were in- 
.viled into the country, we, who gave them laws, should 
have defined clearly and distinctly what were to be their 
rights after they got there. Notliiiis slmiild have been left to 
construction. 1 believed, when the Kunsiis bill was passed, 
lliat it conferred on the inhabitants of the Territories, during 
their territorial existence, no ri^lit to exclude, or in any- 
wise to interfere with, slavery." * * * 

" There seems to be a certain undefined idea in the 
minds of some men that the sovereignty of a Territory is 
inherent in the people of a Territory; that it came to them 
from on high — a sort of political manna, descended from 
heaven on these children of the forest. This doctrine, I 
confe.ss, is a little too ethereal for me ; 1 do not comprehend 
it; but this 1 know — if the sovereignty is in the people of 
the Territory, whether they obtained it from God or men, 
the conduct of this Government towards them is most 
extraordinary. It is nothing short of downright usurpation 
and despotism. We have now seven Governors ajipointed 
by the President, by and with the advice and loiisenl of the 
Senate, lo govern tlie seven Territories of the United .Slates. 
We have seven diflerentsets of territorial judges, appointed 
in the same way, to e.tpound the laws for the seven Terri- 
tories. VVc have marshals to arrest, and district attorneys 
to prosecute, the inhabitants of these sorerciiiiitics in their 
own country. We re(|uire the Territories to legislate in 
obedience to our acts; and, lestthey may go astray, we some- 
times oblige tlicni to send up their laws for our approval. It 
has happened, time and lime again, that their legislation has 
fallen under the disapprobation of (Joneress, and thereby 
become void. What a viockcry to disclaim the sovereignty 
yotir.selves, declare that it is in" the people of the Territory, 
and then send a governor to rule them, judges to expound 
their laws, marshals to arrest, and district attr)rneysto pros- 
ecute them ; and, finally, to require Uicse sovereigns to send 



up their laws for your sanction ; and then, by your diBap- 
pioval,to render them null !" 

Till' Riehnionil Enquirer, (Virginia,) a lending 
Denioeralie [laiier, recently ennlaiiied an elaborate 
article, iViMii wliich I make the folliiwiiig c'Xtract: 

" We must, in the Cineiniiali \>\M\'i>rm,rcituiHiilr squatter 
sovcrci:'utii, and CTirrcmly iifieTi Sliite ci/unlity. We muet 
declare that it is the duty of the General (Government to nee 
that no invidious or injuriinis dislinetions are made between 
the people or the property of diirerent sections in the Ter- 
ritories. We do iiiil mean to dictate. It maybe that tho 
assertion in thejil.itfnrmof the abstract propusitliin ol Stato 
eipiality may siiflice to carry along with it the eoirseijueneeA 
which we desire. Hut it is oHeii charged that llie KansaH- 
Nebraska bill coiitnitis the doctrine of sr|ualter sovereignty, 
and that siiuatler sovereignty is the most elfieieiit agent of 
Free-Soilisin. Some [all] northern Oeinocrnts have main- 
tained titui ground. Now, tuih iicm must iih simkki). It 
must appear from our platform that we niainlain nrarlical 
State equality, and repudiate that construction of tlie Kau- 
sas-Neliraska act which would defeat it." 

The doctrine that the Constitution carries sla- 
very into the Territories, and there legalizes and 
Crotects it, and that the ])eo|)!e of the TerritorieB 
ave no rig/t/ under the Constitution to le'gislate 
upon the suliject, except to "regulate" it, was, 
at the time of the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska 
bill, and now is, the doctrine of the friends of that 
measure. 

Then I ask, sir, what becomes of your siren 
song of "squatter sovereiijnty," and the right 
given to the people of the Territories liy the Ne- 
braska bill "to form their own doniestn; institu- 
tions?" It is all a baseless humbug, an outrage- 
ous imposition, whose light only 
" Leads to bewilder, and 
Dazzles 1*0 blind." 

There is one more very important reason why 
the Missouri compromise should be restored, it 
is to protect the people of Kaiisas in the enjoyment 
of their constitutional rights. As we have already 
remarked, the Kansas-N(>braska bill was advo- 
cated on tlic ground that it would confer powers, 
rights, and privileges, upon the people of Kansas, 
not enjoyed by the people of other Territories 
under their organic acts. Now, what has been 
its practical operation .' I have now no time to 
answer this question in detail. Instead of en- 
joying tho extraordinary rights promised Iry the 
l^ansas-Nebraska act, the people of that Terri- 
tory have been hunted down like wild beasts — 
been waylaid and butchered in the streets; they 
have been lynched and mol)bed; tin ir housea 
sacked and burned to the ground; their printing 
presses thrown into the rivers; their property 
destroyed; and almost every indignity which the 
wickedness of men or devils could invent, show- 
ered down upon their devoted heads. 

The Territory has been invaded by armed 
mobs, who have spread themselves into every 
settlement; the peaceful settlers have been forced 
to surrender their ballot-boxes at the point of the 
bayonet, and then driven from the polls. In 
order to show the kind of spirit which actuated 
these invaders, I read the following extract from 
the Kiekapoo Pioneer, a paper which supports 
this Administration, and receives its patronage: 

" The South must be up and doing; Kansas must and 
shall be a slave State. Mark what we say, southern 
freemen ! Come along with your negroes, and plow up 
every inch of ground that is at this moment disgraei-d mid 
defaced bv an .•Vbohtion idow. Seii<l tlw scoundrels back 
to whence they came, or send them to hell, it matters not 
which destination ; suit your own convenience. Sound 
the bugle of war over the length and breadth of the land, 
and leave not an Aboliiionisi in the Territory to relate 



10 



tlieir treacherous and contaminating deeds. Strike your 
piercin" rifle-balls and vour glittering steel to their black and 
poisonous hearts; let the war-cry never cease in Kansas 
again, until our Territory is divested of the last vestige of 
Abolitionism." 

Sir, the "Constitution of the United States has 
been legislated into Kansas," and the people given 
" popular sovereignty," and this is the kind of 
protection it has afforded them. All the protec- 
tion the National Administration has afforded 
these hardy pioneers has been the protection the 
" wolf affords the lamb," by removing Governor 
Reedcr and sending out Wilson Shannon to en- 
force the bogus laws of a border-ruffian Legisla- 
ture. There never will be ajiy permanent peace 
in Kansas until the question of freedom or slaver)^ ; 
is settled , either by the restoration of the Missouri \ 
compromise, or her admission into the Union as | 
a free State, which is substantially the saine thing, j 
I now pause to inquire, Is there anything j 
sectional on the part of the Republican party, in i 
their constitutional attempts to restore the na- ] 
tional honor, and protect the people of Kansas in 
the peaceful enjoyments of their civil rights ? If 
tliere is, make the most of it. 

The second general proposition I now desire 
to discuss, is the " Sectionalily of the Democratic 
party.'' In pursuing this investigation I intend 
to speak respectfully, but plainly. There are 
many reminiscences still lingering about the old 
Democratic party of a pleasant character. It was 
once a great and powerful party. It was the 
party originally founded by Jefferson; and as we 
travel from its organization down the stream of 
time, we find in its front ranks some of the greatest 
and best men that ever honored and graced our 
country. It was once a party providly standing 
upon a platform of national principles, around 
which the patriotic of every section. North and 
South, could consistently rally. But " how have 
the mighty fallen," and the " fine gold become 
dim!" Where stands the so-called Democratic 
party of the present day ? Has it not changed 
fronts; abandoned its old landmarks; denied the 
faith, and gone over to sectionalism.' These 
questions I now propose to discuss. 

Slavery can in no just sense be termed a na- ^ 
tional institution. We have already shown that 
tlie founders of the Republic did not so consider 
it. Both the Constitution and the early legis- 
lation of the country clearly indicate the fact, 
that Washington, and Jefferson, and Madison, 
and their cotemporaries, looked forward to the 
ultimate extinction of this evil at an early day. 
The framers of the Constitution left slavery where 
tliey found it — with the States — a municipal regu- 
lation, subject entirely to their jurisdiction and 
control. Being left to the States, it became of 
necessity sectional. Beyond the jurisdiction of the 
States where it exists, it has no legal protection. 
Again, slavery is an unnatural right, and can only 
exist l)y virtue of the local laws of the States.^ 

This question has been so decided by our judi- 
cial coui-ls. North and South, over and over again. 
But in order to put this matter beyond all doubt, 
I will cite two or three authorities from the 
decisions of courts in slave States. 

In the case of the State of Mississippi vs. Isaac 
Jones, the Court decided that — 

" The right of the master exists not by force of the Invf 
of nature, or of nations, but by virtue only of the positive 
law of the State."— Walker's Reports, 86. 



In another case in the same State, the Court 
say: 

" Slavery is condemned by reason and the laws of nature. 
It exists, and can only exist, through municipal regulation." ^ 
— Hary vs. Decker; Walker's Reports, 42. 

The next authority which I read is from 2 
Marten's Louisiana Reports, 402, 403: 

" Tlie relation of owner and slave is, in the States of 
this Union in which it has a legal existence, a creature of 
municipal law." 

I will cite one other avithority to this point out 
of the many that are found in the Reports. I 
read from the case of Rankin vs. Lydia, 2 Mar- 
shall's Kentucky Reports, in which the Court 
say: 

" Slavery is sanctioned by the lavys of this State, (Ken- 
ucky,) and the right to hold them under our mimidjsni reg- 
ulations is unquestionable. But we view this as a right 
existing by positive law of a municipal cliaracter, irithout 
foundation in the law of nature, or the unwritten and com^ 
mon law." 

Chattel slavery has no existence except in one 
secHonof the country; therefore, any political party 
which favors slavery, or in any way lends its 
influence to spread it, favors one section of the 
country at the expense of the other, and is most 
emphatically a see/Jo?iai party. A party whose 
leading object is to favor the "peculiar institu- 
' tions" of the South, can have no element of na- 
tionality about it. 

j I have already remarked that the Democratic 
! party was once a national party. The leading men 
j of the party, until within a few years, held that 
' Congress had constitutional power to prohibit 
slavery in the Territories, and that it is expedient 
i to exercise this power. I have already spoken 
! of the position of leading Democrats in the early 
j history of the country. So well settled was this 
principle, that when the Wilmot proviso was first 
I introduced into Congress in 1847, only two Dem- 
ocratic members from the free States voted against 
i it. Among those who voted for it, were the Hon. 
1 Robert McClelland, now Secretary of the Interior; 
Senator Brodhead, of Pennsylvania; ex-Governor 
Dunlap, of Maine; and the late Senator Norris, 
of New Hampshii-e. The late lamented Silas 
Wright, General Dix of New York, and other 
leading Democrats all over the country, favored 
the measure. The leading papers of the Demo- 
cratic press came out for it. The Eastern Argus, 
the leading Democratic paper in Maine, and the 
New Hampshire Patriot, the leading Democratic 
paperin New Hampshire, both took strong ground 
for the proviso. More than this, a majority of the 
free States of the Union passed resolutions in- 
structing their Senators in Congress to go for the 
measure; and in a majority of these States the 
Democratic party held the political control. In 
1848 the following, among other Democratic mem- 
bers, voted for the bill organizing the Territory 
of Oregon with a proviso forever prohibiting sla- 
very: "Messrs. Allen, of Ohio; Benton, of Mis- 
souri; Bright and Brcese, of Indiana; Douglas, of 
Illinois; Dodge, of Wisconsin; Dix and Dicker- 
son, of New York; and Houston, of Texas. (Con- 
gressional Globe.) 

President Pierce himself, at a meeting held at 
Concord, New Hampshire, June 12, 1845, as re- 
ported in the New Hampshire Patriot, in reply to 
Senator Hale, said: 
" He had only to say now, what he had always said, that 



II 



he regarded tUtvery ea one of the greatest moral and tocial 
eviU — a curse-uponthe ii-hole country; and thin he helici-ed to 
be the setilimcnt of all men of all parties at the North. iMr. 
P. WHS (roe to iijiiiit that he had liiiiiscir !i|i|>riiai-|ii'il iliis 
sulijec't of aiiiic.valiiiii [of 'I^•.\a^i] witli ull lii.s pn-juilic-i-H 
and proposspssioiis asainst it, ami on onk iiniii'M) ai.onk — 

ITS SLAVKRY FKATURK. His coiivirtioiis oil llli.s Klllljl-Ct 
wi^rf, as lie had slated, slroii<;— not the rosiilt ol' any ni.'W 
light, hut (li'i'ply fixed and ahidiiii;. The only iiirKKiM.TY 

IN niS MIM> KVKR 1IAH HKKN TIIA r OF A RKICIGNITIOM BY 
ANY SKW ACT OK OITR (JoVKItNMINT OK TIIK INSTITHTION 

OK noMKSTir si.AVKRY ; and he had rciiiml it ••xtreiiiely ilil- 
ticult to hriii<; his iiiiiul to a eoiuliiioii iiii|iarliully to \vei|>li 
the argiiineiit lor and against the ineaMiie.'' 

In 1851, General Pierce, in the convention of 
New Hampsliiro for revising the Constitution, 
left the chair, made a s|ieech which was reported 
in tlie New Ilainpsliire Patriot, and among other 
things said: 

" I WOCt.D TAKK THE (iROOND OF THE NON-EXTENSION OK 
SI.AVKKV — THAT SLAVERY SHOULD NOTUECOMK STRONOKR. 

Hut Coiiiiress have only reonacted the old law ol" ITU.'t. 
Union loving men, desiring peace and loving their country, 
conceded that point — cnwii.lingly coNCEDEn it — and, 
planting themseives upon this law against tlicouthursLs ol 
popular reeling, resisted llic agitation which is assaulting 
all who stand up lor their country. Hiit the^gentlenian says 
that the law is obnoxious. Wii ^t single thing is there 

CONNECTED WITH SLAVERY THAT IS NOT OBNOXIOUS.' 

Even the okntleman from .Marlboroii:ii (Dr. Hatchel- 

lar) CANNOT FEEL MORE DEErLY THAN I DO ON THE SUU- 
JKCT." 

New Hampshire and Maine have heretofore 
been tiie two leading Democratic States, not only 
in New England but the Union. Tlie Democratic 
party in these two States were the very last to 
falter, and the last to be conquered; for they, like 
General Taylor, "never surrendered." As long 
ago as 1828, the county of Cumberland, in Maine, 
the larger portion of which is in my district, 
"solitary and alone" in all J^ew En<;land, gave 
her electoral vote to ^indrew Jackson. For this act 
of fidelity to the gallant old hero, tiiis county 
was long known as the " Star in the East;" and 
the now venerable James C. Churchill, who was 
die standard-bearer of the " unterrified" in tliat 
great fight is ijow an honored member of the 
Republican party. I have seen a letter written 
by him, dated ^Portland, March 21, 185G, in 
answer to an invitation from the "American 
Republicans" of Dover, New Hampshire, to 
meet with them and celebrate the late glorious 
victory in that State, in which he says: 

'• I congratulate you most heartily and sincerely in having 
obUliiied a victory so signal and so glorious. It seems to iiie 
tlie advocate of ' Rum' lacks good morals and jood juilg- 
nient ; the advocate of extension of ' slavery" lacks gmid 
sense and good principles, and every good thing for which 
our fatJiers I'ought and conquered in the Kevolution." 

In 1832, Maine gave her ten electoral votes 
to Old Hickory, and gallant New Hampshire 
wheeled in by her side, wiili her seven. In 183G, 
they both went for Van Buren. In 1840, the 
democracy of Maine, after a terrible fight, was 
beaten only by a few hundreds. " Hard cider, 
log cabins, and gold spoons," were too much for 
her. But New Hampshire, firm as her" granite 
hills," breasted the storm, withstood the shock, 
and gave her seven electoral votes for Van Buren. 
In 1844, both States went for James K. Polk; in 
1848, both voted for Genera! Cass; and in 1852, 
both, by overwhelming majorities, chose electors 
for Franklin Pierce. 

With this clean Democratic record, where has 
the Democratic party in these States stood upon 
the question of slavery prohibition in the Terri- 
tories .' I answer, just where the Republican 
party now stand; and 1 will proceed to prove it. 



The Deiriocratic State Committee of New 
Hampshire, in October, 1847, passed llie follow- 
ing resolution: 

" Ilcsolviul, That we declare it oiirhoi.emn convictiok, 
as the Democratic party liavi; heretofore done, iliatneiihc-r 
.v/nerrj/ nor involuiitiirii serfilude should hereafter rxi.-l in 
any territory which may he ac(|uircd hy or annexed in the 
ITiiited Slates; and that we approve of ilie votes of our 
delegation in CongresH in favor of the VVilmot l'r<ivi>o." 

In 1848, the Legislature of that State, which 
had an overwhelming Democratic majority, re- 
solved as follows: 

" Keiolved In/ the Senate and Iloutc of RejrretenlatU'ca in 
General -t'oiirt ronrfiieJ, That we are in favor of the pan- 
sage of a law, hy( Congress, J'orercr jirohildtiu^ slavery in 
New Mexico and ( 'aliltirn ia, anW inn// of /icr Territories I'low 
acquired, or herealler to be acquired, by the (/iiited States, 
in which slavery does not exist at the time of ouch aequiiii- 
tion." 

And in 1849, (he New Hamp.shirc Legislature, 
still strongly Democratic, unanimously adopted 
the following resolutions: 

" Resolved hy the Senate and House of Representatives in 
General Court convened, That, opposed to every form of 
oppression, the people nf New llainpshin* have ever viewed 
with deep regret tliiM'xistence of slavi^ry in this Union ; that 
while they have steadfastly supported all si'clions in their 
constitutional rights, they have not only lamented its exist- 
ence as a great social evil, but regarded it as fraught uHth 
danger to the peace and welfare of the nation. 

" Resolved, That while we respect the rights of the slave- 
holding as well as the free portionsof this Union— while we 
will not willingly consent that wrong be done to any inem- 
her of the glorious Confi'<liTacy to which we belong, we 
are firmly and cnalteraiily oim'osed to the exten- 
sion OF SLAVERY OVER ANY PORTION OF A.MERICAN SOIL 
NOW FREE. 

" Resolved, That, in our opinion, Congress has the con- 
stitutional POWER to abolish the slavf. trade and 
SLAVERY inthe DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ; and that our Sen- 
ators BE INSTRUCTED, and our Representatives be re- 
quested, TO TAKE ALL CONSTITUTIONAL MEASURES tO 
accoiii|)lish these objects." — See sjieech of Senator Hale. 

But how have the Democratic " veterans of an 
hundred l>attles" in Maine stood upon this ques- 
tion .' AVe will see. 

In 1847, Hon. John W. Dana was Governor of 
Maine, and the Legislature was strongly Demo- 
cratic. In hisannual message Governor D. said: 

" The territory which we may acquire as indemnity for 
claims upon Mexico, is free ; sjiall it be made slave terri- 
tory? The sentiment of the free States is profound, sincere, 
and almost universal, that the influence of slavery upon 
productive energy is like the blight of mildew, — that it is a 
moral and a social evil ; that it does violence to the rights 
of man, as a thinking, reasoning, and res|K)n^ible being; 
that its existence in this territory will shut out free labor, 
because the free man will not submit himself to the degra- 
dation which attaches to labor wherever slavery exists. 
Influenced by such considerations, the free States will op- 
pose the introduction of slavery into the territory which njay 
be acquired." 

In speaking of the right of slaveholders to liold 
their slaves in the Territories of the United States, 
he further said: 

" On the other hand, the slave States claim that this ter- 
ritory will be acquired, if acquired at all, by the blood and 
treasure of all the States of the Union, to become the joint 
property of all ; to be held for the benefit of all. And they 
emphatically ask, ' Is it consistent with justice." His rieht 
to ac(|uireand possess property is one of the inherent rights 
of man, independent of laws and constitutions. Not so 
with the right to his slave ; that is an ijnnatural, an ar- 
tificial, A statute right; and when he voluntarily 
p;isses with a slave to a Territory, where the statute recog- 
nizing the right does not exist, then at once the right ceases 
to exist. The slave becomes a free man, with just as 

MUCH right TO CLAl.H THE MASTER, AS THE MASTER TO 
CLAIM THE slave." 

This is precisely where the Republican party 
now stand. And who is Governor Dana.' Now 



12 



Minister to Bolivia, and appointed by President 
Pierce. 

The Legislature responded, and passed the 
following resolutions, with only six nays in the 
House, and by a large majority in the Senate: 

" Resoli.'e<l, That the sentiment of this State is profound, 
sincere, and almost universal, that the influence of slavery 
upon productive eneigy is hke the blight of mildew ; that it 
is a moral and social evil ; that it does violence to the rights 
of man, as a thinking, reasonable, and responsible being. 
Influenced by such considerations, this State will oppose 
the introduction of slaveiy into any Territory which may 
be acquired as an indemnity for claims upon Mexico. 

" Resolved, That in the acquisition of any free territory, 
whether by purchase or otherwise, we deem it the duty of 
the General Government to extend over the same the ordi- 
nance of seventeen hundred and eighty-seven, with all its 
rights and privileges, conditions and immunities. 

" Resolved, That our Senators be instructed, and our 
Representatives requested, to support and carry out the 
principles of the foregoing resolutions." 

August 2, 1848, the Legislature of Maine, still 
strongly Democratic, passed the following resolu- 
tions relating to the extension of slavery in newly- 
acquired territory: 

" Resolned, That Maine duly appreciates the concession 
and compromises which led to the adoption and establish- 
ment of the -Constitution of the United States ; and she 
will cheerfully and honestly abide by the letter and spirit 
of them. At tlie same time she will firmly resist all demands 
for their enlargement and extension. 

^'Resolved, That the sentijuenl of this State is profound, 
sincere, and almost universal, that the influence of slavery 
upon productive energy is like tin; bliglil of mildew ; that 
it is debasing and degrading in its influence upon free labor ; 
that it is a moral and social evil ; that it does violence to 
the rights of man as a rational, thinking, and accountable 
being; influenced by these and other important considera- 
tions, this State will firmly oppose the introduction of sla- 
very into any Territory acquired as an indenmity for claims 
tipon Mexico. 

" Resolved, That it is the duty of Congress to prevent, 
by the exercise of all constitutional power, the extension of 
slavery into territorj' of the United States now free. 

" Resolved, That our Senators in Congress are hereby 
instructed, and our Representatives requested, to support 
and carry out the principles of tlie foregohig resolutions." 

June 28, 1849, the Democratic party in Maine 
held a State convention, at which Hon. John 
Hubbard was nominated for Governor. This 
convention was composed of six hundred dele- 
gates, at which the following resolutions were 
passed — only one solitary member voting against 
them: 

" Resolved, That the institution of human slavery is at 
variance with the theory of our Government, abhorrent to 
th£ common sentiment of mankind, and fraught with dan- 
ger to all who come within the .s^phere of its influence ; that 
the l''ederal Government jiosscsses adequate jioncr to inhibit 
its existence in the Territories of the Union; that the consti- 
tutionality of this power has been settled by judicial C07istruc- 
tion, by cotemporaneous expositions, arid by repeated acts 
of legislation ; and that we enjoin upon our Senators and 
Representatives in Congress to make every exertion, and 
employ all their influence, to procure the passage of a law 
forever excluding slavery from the Territories of California 
and New Mexico. 

" Resolved, That while we most cheerfully concede to 
our southern brethren the right, on all occasions, to speak 
and act with entire freedom on questions connected with 
slavery in the Territories, we claim the exercise of the 
same right for ourselves ; and any attempt, from any quar- 
ter, to stigmatize us or our Representatives for advocating 
or defending the opinions of our people upon this subject, 
will be repelled as an unwarrantable act of aggression upon 
tlie rights of the citizens of this State." 

At this convention a committee, of which Col- 
onel Ephraim K. Smart was chairman, was 
raised to report an address to the people, from 
which address I read the following extract : 

" TUo, Whig party of this State will undoubtedly present 
a candidate in opposition to him [Hubljanl] who will be 
a swift advocate of anti-slavery principles ; but he will, at 



the same time, necessarily feel himself under greater obli- 
gations to give aid and comfort to a President [Taylor] 
and Cabinet hostile to the inhibition of slavery in our Ter- 
ritories. A Governor with such associates irould utterly 
fail to exact any moral influence in favor of frkedom in 
THE Territories. The anti-slavery professions, we are • 
sure, of one who is bound to do the biddinz of the pres- 
ent Cabinet AT Washington, wiH be taken at Iheir true 
value. The people have become justly jealous of those 
who make such jirofessions and at the same time cling to the 
great central power atthe Capitol, and, for favor there, 
even submit to the sacrifice of principles. In the pres- 
ent temper of the times it will be very difficult for such to 
obtain jmwer." 

And who is Colonel Smart.' Answer. Col- 
lector at Belfast, Maine, appointed by President 
Pierce, while he is now publishing a newspaper 
called the "Free Press," puffing the President 
to the skies, advocating the reelection of General 
Pierce with a zeal and fanaticism which throws 
every other Democrat in Maine far into the shade. 

Governor Hubbard, after his nomination, was 
written to by some of his political friends as to 
his position, and made the following reply: 

Hallowell, July 17, 1849. 
Gentlemen : Yours of the 16th, re(|uestiiig a " state- 
ment of my views in relation to the extension of slavery 
into Territories of the United States now free," is before 
me. The question in all its practical bearings, as a subject 
of deliberative and solemn legislation, is an extensive one. 
1 can only give here a brief statement of the principles which 
would guide my action upon it. 

First. I believe Congress to have entire, constitutional 
jurisdiction over the whole subject of slavery in the Terri- 
tories of the United States. 

Second. I am opposed to slavery in all its bearings, moral, 
social, and political, and especially am I opposed to its ex- 
tension. 

Third. I would adopt all constitutional and equitable 
means to prevent tlie extension of slavery into Territories 
now free. 

Hoping, gentlemen, that this brief exposi will meet your 
views, I am, with sentiments of respect and resard, yours, 

JOHN HUBBARD. 
Messrs. Adams Treat, Thomas M. Merkow, William 

Merriam, Author Treat, Jesse Smart, J:mN Hodg- 

DON, p. SiMONTON, G. N. WhITE, NaTHAN WORTHING, 

Daniel Wentworth, Joseph Bachelder, Daniel 

Smith. 

In 1854 the Legislature of Maine — being in 
session at the time the Kansas-Nebraska bill was 
pending before Congress — passed the following 
resolutions, with but six nays in the House, and 
only one in the Senate: 

" Resolved, That the Senators in Congress from Maine 
be instructed, and the Representatives requested, to oppose 
in every practicable way the passage of the Nebraska bill, 
so called, so long as it shall contain any provision repealing, 
abrogating, rescinding, or in any way invalidating that pro- 
vision of the act of Congress approved March 6, 1820, com- 
monly called the Missouri compromise. 

" Resolved, That the Governor be requested to forward 
a copy of the above resolution to each of our Senators and 
Representatives at Washington." 

Among those who voted for these resolves 
were Hon. N. S. Littlefield, a leading Democrat 
in ray State, and four years a member of Con- 
gress, and president of the last Democratic State 
convention in Maine, held in June last, and Hon. 
Lot M. Merrill, another leader of the party, who 
was the Democratic candidate for the United 
States Senate in opposition to Hon. William P 
Fessenden, and is now president of the Senate in 
Maine. 

During the congressional canvass in my dis- 
trict, in 1854, and a few days before election, 
my competitor for Congress, Hon. William K. 
Kimball, came out in a letter, in reply to one 
[ addressed to him by Hon. W. H. Vinton, and 
I others, inquiring as to his position upon the 
1 slavery question — which letter was extensively 



13 



circulated through the district— in which Mr. 
Kimbiill iitiid: 

" (iciilli'iiicii, I have recL'ivcd your letter oftlio Isl iiisliiiil, 
and li>.-<' no linir in rcplyinsj to it. I'pon the geiifiul snli- 
Ji'ct orAmi'iiciuisl.ivriy, riiy 0|iiiiioiis, pi-rliiips, are iMt ilil- 
Irrcnt I'mni your own, or from lliosi- u.-iiiilly mlcrlaiiK d l>y 
liorllicrn nirn. I ri'fiard it as u social, moral . and polilii-al 
evil; and its siiofi-ssliil iilxilllion in my judL'nii'nt would In.' 
worth ahiiosl any price short of the I'nion iisc'lf. 'I'lie idi'a 
(if its extension into new Terriloiies mint lie alihorciit to 
every rifrht minded nndsouiidhearlediiian. Nothing could 
induce me to i;ive my vote or iuHueiicu to estahlish it on a 
single fool of free soil." 

With this Idler in their liands, the friends of 
Mr. Kiniliall, on the vtnj ere of the cleclion, went 
throuu:h my district, ursrinj:: men who Imd for- 
merly been eonneeted with tlie Fi-ec-Snil |);irly to 
vote for him, alleirinc;, as a reason, that he was 
more ultra tlian myself upon the slavery que.slion, 
at the same time producing that letter as evidence 
of that fact. 

Mr. Chairman, I could go on at almost any 
ength in proving by the records of the past that, 
Ithe Democratic ]iarty upon this question have 
in years past, held the same jiosition now occu- 
pied by the Republican party; but I have no lime 
to put in much other evidence to thi.s point which 
1 have cnllecled fortius purpose. But I will now 
return, and desire to propound the same question 
to the Democratic party which the Almighty put 
to Adam afterhehad sinned, " AVhere art thou.'" 
and, by the way, that party-is very much in the 
same condition Adam was when thus interro- 
gated; and as he was driven out of Paradise by 
his Maker for his sins, so the Democratic party 
has been driven out of power by the pe'oplc for the 
same cause, with now no very good prospect of 
ever getting back into "Paradise." But to the 
question and the answer. 

After General Cass, in liis celebrated " Nichol- 
son litter," in lUiS, u-andered o£' South, and pub- 
lished to the country the ftict that a " change had 
been going on in his own mind as well as in j 
others," out of respect for, or sympathy with, a 
great political leader — with a love for the spoils, 
or an inordinate thirst for power and place, or 
some other reasons, he was soon followed by no 
inconsiderable number of prominent inen of his 

Earty. From that day to this they have been 
acking down, backing down, and backing down, 
until the Democratic party has lost every element 
of nationality, and is now become a mere sec- 
tional instrumentality to spread slavery into free 
Territory, and build a great slave oligarchy to 
override every other interest in the whole coun- 
try. To allow slavery to go into the vast fields 
of Kansas and Nebraska, the Democratic party 
united with ihe South to break down the great 
banner of freedom in the repeal of the Missouri 
compact. This party is now using its whole power 
to make slavery national. Having by sectional 
legislation exposed every foot of American soil 
to the withering, blighting mildews of slavery, 
the party now hugs the viper to its bosom, and 
declares eternal iiostility to " restoration," or a 
correction of the great wrong by them committed 
upon the best interests of the Union. 

What is Democracy in 1856? Let us examine 
this question. In order to a right understanding 
of this matter,! will call the attention of the com- 
mittee to Certain resolutions passed bj- Democratic 
conventions in several of the States, as their 
" platform of [u-inciples — as the basis of a national 
organization." 



First, I will read certain re.sohitions of the 
Democracy of Alabama, at their late convention 
to elect delegates to the Cincinnati convention. 
Thi.s convention declared in favor of General 
Pierce's n'noiniiiation: 

licsolicl, "8. 'I'hat it in expedient that wo hlioiilil be 
represenii'd in the lleiinieralie National (..'oiiventioii upon 
such couilitiotii a.-i are hert-iiiatter expressed. 

"9. 'I'lnit Ihedelei-aiesto the Dciiioeralie National Con- 
vention, to noininaie n I'rcsi<lent and N'lee I'n-sident, «r« 
hcreliy cvjtrcssl-ii iiitiruclnl to iiiviVf that tin; said convention 
liliall adopt « jiltttfonn of jn-incijdcs ru Ihc liaais of a national 
or liuni zillion, prior to the noininatioii of candidalus, un- 
cpiivoeatty a.sserlini;, in suli^lanee, Hie Hdlowiii); proposi- 
lioiis: 1. 'I'lie reeii';iiilii)n and approval of tin' principle of 
lion intervention by ('oiiL'ress upon ihe siilijeet of slavery in 
the Territoric's. 3. Thut no rcslrirlion or iiroliiliition of 
slavery in any Territory shull hcrenflcr I'C made in ami act of 
Congress. 'A. That no .Slate shall lie refused adinistiiMii into 
the iJniou because of the existence of slavery therein. 4. 
The faithful cxeuiitioii and inaiiiteiiaiice of the ttigitive 
slave law. 

'' 10. That if said National Convention shall refuse to 
adopt the propositliins embraced in the priH'ediii!; resoliilioii, 
our delegates In said eonvenlion arc hereby poiitiicly irv- 
struitcd to uitlulraw IhercfrOTn.^' 

The Democratic convention of Missis-sippi, 
which assembled in January last to elect (dele- 
gates to iht.' same convention, passed tiie follow- 
ing resolutions: 

licsoh-cH, ••4. That our delegates to the next National 
Convention of the Democratic party, to be held for the pur- 
pose of nomiiiatins candidates for president and Vice Presi- 
dent, are hereby instructed thai they are to insist on the 
adoption by said coiivimtion of a platform of printiplcs 
which shall contain : 

" 1. A recognition and adoption of the principles of the 
act of Congress commonly called the Kansas Nebraska acU 

"2. A pledge to resist all attempts to abolish slavery in 
the District of ('olumliia, or to prohibit the slave trade be- 
tween the States. 

" 3. A pledge to resist all attempts to repeal the fugitive 
slave bill or impair its faithful execution." 

The Democratic State convention of Georgia, 
the " Empire State" of the South, which, 1 think, 
was holden on the 6th of June last, adopted the 
following resolutions: 

" Rcsolied, That we adopt as our own the following 
re.soliilion, passed unanimously by the last Legislature of 
Georgia : 

" 'Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Geor- 
sia, Tiiat opposition to the principles' ol the Nebraska bill, 
in relation to the subject of slavery, is regarded by the peo- 
ple of Georgia as hostility to the people of the South, and 
that all persons who partake in such oppo.-iiion are unfit 
to be recognized as component parts of any party or organ- 
ization not hostile to the iHoulh.' 

" Resolved, That in accordance with the above resolu- 
tion, whilst we are willing to act in parly association with all 
sound and reliable nen in cvi'iy section of the Union, we 
are not willing to atlillate wilh any party Ihat shall not rec- 
ognize, approve, and carry out the principles and provisions 
of the Nebra^:ka-Kan>as act ; and that the Demiicralie party 
of Georgia will cut olfall parly e()Mne<'tion with every man 
and party at the North or elsewhere that does not come up 
fully and fairly to this line of action.'' 

1 have no time to refer to resolutions of Demo- 
cratic conventions in other States; they are all of 
the same tenor. 

The Democratic platform has three principal 
planks: 

1. The Constitution of the United States carries 
slavery into the Territories, and there protects it; 

2. No restriction or prohibition of slavery in 
the Territories; and 

3. The maintenance and execution of the fugi- 
tive slave law. 

Here is a platform constructed exclusively to 
favor southern interests. Is it a national benefit 
to extend slavery into the Territories, or is it 
done for the benefit of a section.' Was not the 
fugitive slave law made for the benefit of the 



14 



South, and do not its supporters demand its 
execution to protect southern interests ? 

The Democratic platform is sectional in all its 

fiarts; and to call it a " national" platform is a 
ibcl upon the common sense of every man who 
reads it. 

With all these facts glaring; them in the face, 
the members of the so-called Democratic party, 
the supporters of the present national Adminis- 
tration, have the unblushing impudence to stand 
up, and say to those of us who have, on the stump 
and at the ballot-box, through good report and 
evil report, supported Jackson, and Van Burcn, 
and Polk, and Pierce, (until he forsook his friends 
and abandoned his platform,) and have clung to the 
Democratic party like the mariner to the wreck, 
until there was not a single plank of its good old 

Elatform left to save us from perdition , that we 
ave left the Democratic party — that we have 
changed and gone over to Abolitionism — when 
they know, and we know, and the whole world 
knows, that they are the men that have changed, 
they are the deserters, that they have gone off and 
offered sacrifices to strange gods, while we are 
defending the sacramental altars and consecrated 
fires of the " God of our fathers." While we 
are, in good faith, maintaining and defending the 
doctrines of Jefferson and the Democratic party, 
they are bowing down and worshiping the Dagon 
god of African slavery. 

But it may be said the Cincinnati convention 
will not adopt the platform dictated by the sev- 
eral State conventions I have referred to. If any 
one entertains this opinion he is grossly mis- 
taken. What says the Democracy of Alabama.' 
They instruct their delegates to "withdraw" 
unless the convention comes up to the mark; 
while the Democrats of Georgia declare they "will 
cut off all party connection with every man and 
party at the ^''orth, or elseichere, that does not fully 
and fairly come up to this line of action. " It may 
be a bitter dose for northern Democrats, and they 
may at first resist it; but it will be of no use, for 
they will have to drink the poisoned draught to 
the very dregs. Yes, gentlemen, you have got to 
take the whole dose; and, however bitter and 
nauseating it may be, you have not only got to 
swallow it, but say you love it. Every northern 
Democrat will have to mount the Juggernaut car 
of slavery, "hold the reins, or crack the whip," 
or be thrown overboard to be crushed under the 

!)onderous weight of its gigantic wheels. An 
lonorable gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Keitt] the other day, in eloquent, but plain lan- 
guage, announced to the Democratic party the 
line of policy it had got to pursue to receive 
southern support. That gentleman said: 

"The Democratic party at the North has been cut down 
In tlie fight. It has passed through tire and water. It has 
come out cleansed, with whitened garments. It is nov/ 
strong enough to dn liattle for the Constitution. Will you 
swell it, for the spoils, with a motley horde, wearing soiled 
and tattered robes? If you will, give the platform to the] 
Sok/A, and the man to the North." * * * * *[ 
",The South should establish in the platform the principle, 
that the right of a southern man to his slave is equal in its j 
length and breadth to the right of the northern man to his 
horse. She should make the recognition of the right full, 
complete, and indisputable." 

There is one other piece of evidence I will offer 
upon this point. Frankhn Pierce and his admin- 
istration are indorsed by the Democratic party. 
Of course what he believes they believe. Now, 
to show his position and that of the party who 



support him, I will read an extract of a letter 
from Senator Evans, of South Carolina, recently 
written and published, recommending his State 
to go into the Cincinnati convention. He says: 

" President Pierce is a man after our own hearts. Both 
in words and deeds he comes nearer to our opinions than 
any man who has preceded him for the last thirty years. 
Our vote may give him the nomination, and my best judg- 
ment is that we ought to join in the selection." 

In the face of these facts we hear it proclaimed 
in these Halls, upon the stump, and everywhere, 
that the Democratic party is a national party. 
Members of this southern-sectional party talk 
with greatflippancy about "national Democrats," 
" national Democracy;" and almost in the same 
breath denounce the only truly national party in 
the country as " Black Republicans," sectional- 
ists and fanatics. Black Republicans! Who can 
help admiring the taste of a party who, for the 
want of argument to sustain their cause, resort to 
the doubtful experiment of dealing in opprobri- 
ous epithets? "Black Republicans!" Sir, let 
the party whose very existence is shrouded by 
the "black" pall of Egyptian night, first wash 
out the " black" stains of its own pollution before 
it deals out contemptuous, reproachful terms upon 
its neighbors. 

Mr. Chairman, before closing my remarks, I 
desire to notice another charge of a more serious 
character brought against the Republican party. 
The members of this party are charged with 
being "disunionists." Never was there a charge 
more unfounded, more untrue. I call upon gen- 
tlemen who make this groundless assumption 
to bring out your proof, or " back out." But it 
was said on this floor, prior to the organization 
of this House, that the distinguished gentleman 
from Massachusetts, who with so much ability 
and impartiality presides over our legislative 
deliberations, upon a certain occasion said, there 
" might come a contingency when he should be 
willing to let the Union slide;" and almost any 
amount of holy horror was expressed by the 
administration members of the House over this 
rumor. 

Now, sir, supposing the honorable Speaker 
did make this remark — which I do not admit — it 
is no threat of disunion; it expresses no desire for 
disunion; and it never can be tortured into the 
expression of a sentiment /aroj-aft/e to the disso- 
lution of the Union under any contingency. I 
defy any gentleman to point me to a single Repub- 
lican convention in any part of the country, that 
has ever been holden, where anything like dis- 
union sentiments have been uttered. These 
charges of disunion against the Republican party, 
or any of its members, when investigated and 
weighed in the balance of truth, will all disappear, 
like the "baseless fabric of a vision." Neither 
is there anything in the political opinions or 
platform of the Republican party, that tends to a 
disruption of these States. We revere the Con- 
stitution, and live up to all its obligations; and 
when we are charged with disloyalty to this 
great charter of freedom, we hurl back the charge 
and deny the impeachment. 

But who makes these charges against the Re- 
publican party .' What political organization 
stands up to charge the Republicans of this coun- 
try with political treason .' It is the so-called 
Democratic party that has done it, and is now 
doing it. Sir, this issue hr.s been forced upon us, 
and we accept it. We will not only act on the 



15 



defensive, but we " carry the war into Africa." 
How stands the Nebraska Democracy upon this 

question ? 

I have some recollection about a southern con- 
vention at Mashville, in June, 18.')0. I do not say 
for what [nu-pose this meeting was called. I will 
let Colonel Trotti, a delegate tVoni Stuith Caro- 
lina to said convention, give his uiuiersuiiulini: of 
the matter, by givine; an extract of a siieeeii made 
by him at the meeting at which he was chosen. 
It may be found in the National Intelligencer, in I 
June, 1850. He says in giving his own views: | 
" 'I'hal p<iiiV('iitii)ii should .••ay to llii' imii slaveliolilint; 
States, the t^oulh will riiaintaiii her righu uiid e<iualily in y 
till' I'liinn, or she ti-ill dissolve it." 1 

In this convention figured several distinguished 
gentlemen of the Democratic party. One of the ; 
resolutions there adopted declares — | 

"Tliat tlio slavcliolding States raimo< and wil.l, not sub- ' 
mit to Ui(" enactment by t'oiipress of any law iiin>o^itig 
onerous conditions and restraints upon the rights of inast('rs 
to remove with llicir property into llio Territories of tlie j 
United t>tales." 

I think a majority of the meeting, after getting 
together, were opposed to takingany violent meas- 
ures to bring about a rupture with the General , 
Government; yet Governor Foote, of Mississippi, 
in a speech in the United States Senate, July 18, 
1850, says: | 

" Tliat Ihero were disunioiiists there, (though I regret to ; 
acknowledge it,) is a fact iclnch cannot he denied, for several | 
gentlemen who aoteil a prominent part in the eonveiition [ 
are understood to have unfurled the tlag of disunion sinee 
tlie convention adjourned." — ^ppsndix Cong. Globe, \oi.i 
22, p. lyJO. 

Hon. Jefferson Davis, now Secretary of War, 
in a speech in the United States Senate, June 27, ' 
1850, when speaking of " disunion," said: | 

" It is an alternative not to be anticipated— one to which 
I could look forward to as the last resort ; but it is one, let 
me say, which under certain contin!;cnries I am u-ilting to 
meet; and I leave my constituents to judge when that con- 
tingency arrives.'" — Cong. Globe. 

I could go on and read from speeches of emi- ^ 
nent gentlemen of the Democratic party, in times 
past, in which they make direct threats to dis- 
solve the Union; but I will only read two or | 
three extracts from speeches made by Democrats 
upon this floor, containing their opinions upon 
this question. 

An honorable member from South Carolina, j 
[Mr. Brooks,] in a debate in this House on the j 
24lh of December last, said: 

"The gentleman from .Massachusetts lias announced to 
the world Uiat, in certain contingencies, he is willing to 
let the Union slide. Now, sir, let his contingencies bi; re- j 
versed, and I am willing to let tlie Unian slide ; ay, sir, to j 
aid in makiiig it slide." 

Another honorable member from Virginia, 
[Mr. McMuLUN,] in a debate in this House on 
tlie 20th of December last, said: 

" One of the greatest misfortunes of the country, Mr. Clerk, 
is Uie fact that our northern brethren mistake the character 
of the South. Th«y suppose that the southern disunionists 
are confined to the Calhoun wing of the Uemocralic party. 
That, sir, is the greatest error that the people of the North 
have ever fallen into. And I tell you, sir, and I want the 
country to know it — I waiit the genUemcn from the free 
States, our Kepublicans, our Seward Itepublieans, our 
AboliiionistJ, or whatever else you may be called, to know 
it — that if you restore the Missouri compromise, or repeal 
thetugilive slave law, this Union will be diy.wlied. 

" If the Government goes into the hands of the North, into 
the hands of the Republican party, of the Abolition party— 
for I like to call things by their true names — I say if the 
Government of »ho country' g"es into the hands of the Abo- 
lilioiiiAta of the Norlli, and they either repeal liie fugitive 
slave law or restore ttie Missouri compronusc, I tell the 



(louse, and I tell the country, tlint iliere will then be union 
at the South upon iliis question. " 

The same gentleman goes on still further to say: 

" .\nd let mo ask gentlemen from the North, if this Union 

is dissolvi'd. who holds your National (-'apilol ! Ilul let me 

say to i;<-iitli men ol'thi^ Ninth, you eiinnot get possession ol 

this Naliiinal Ciipilol. 

''The I'aplliil now beiones to no seeljon. It belong* alike 
to North, South, Kast, and West. Hut, sir. It wu.t en-eted 
upon slave li'rritory. and if the hand of disunion shall ever 
sever the Slati's of this Ki'pilblie. you shall never take pos- 
session of it while I tic<'upy my seat as a Iti-presenlniive 
upon this floor. -And more, I teil them that when llie North 
and the South sevi-r the eonneelion wliieli now binds them 
to^'illier, ilie North will never take possecsionof tliis Cupitol 
unless they pass over my dead body." 
I The gentleman says this Capitol was erected 
upon slave territory: and, in ntsr of a dissolution, 
if the North get any i)art of the iiiiblie plunder, 
while he occupies a seat, they will have to " pass 
over his dead body." When I listened to this 
remark, it brought " vividly to my recollection a 
scene that was witnessed in this same slavehold- 
ing territory," in August, 1H14, when a handful 
of British soldiers and sailors, after spending 
about a month ujion the watersof the Chesapeake, 
landed, and, dragging their three pieces of artil- 
lery up by hand, over this same " slaveholding 
territory, applied the torch to the Capitol, 
reduced it to a heap of smouldering ruins, and, 
after destroying our library and ptiliiic archives, 
leisurely reiimharked, and quietly sailed away to 
other scenes of operation. 

The Democratic State convention of Alabama, 
before referred to, in their fourth resolution de- 
clare ; 

t " That any interference by Congress /or the prevention of 
slaveni in any of the Territories, wnu\d be an inexcusable 
and unconstitutional infringement of the rights of the 
South, which, it is Uie deliberate sense of this eonvention, 
it would he the duty of thcjicoplc of Jllubama to rexUl even 

to a DISRUPTION OF THE TIES TUAT Bl.ND THIS STATE TO 
THE U.NION !" 

' This is the party which taunts the Republicans 

with the charge of "disunion." Let this party 

first" cast the beam out of its own eye," before 

it undertakes to "cast the mote out of its brother's 

i eye." 

I Where can you find a Republican convention 
passing resolves deliberately threatening to "dis- 
solve the Union" if the particular measures of 
■ the party arc not adopted, or if the legislation of 
I the country shall not happen to conform to their 
j notions of constitutional law.' Sir, we hear a 
'great deal of boasting about " National Demo- 
crats" — "National Democracy." These terms 
I mean nothing but this: a party that is in favor of 
J spreading slavery into free territory. Again, we 
hear geiulemcn declaiming loud and long about 
! our "constitutional obligations," which, when 
I being truly interpreted, mean " catching runaway 

negroes." 
Ij Then, again, we hear the Republican party 
denounced as Black Republicans, DisunionxslSy 
\\MolHlonhts. Very well, we understand why these 
' reproachful teririsare applied to the Republicans. 
' It is simply becau.se they i>elieve in the doctrines 
\ of the Declaration of Independence, that the Con- 
j stilution embodies the great principles of personal 
' liberty; it is becauscthey stand upon the old 
' time-honored platform of Washington, of Jefter- 
I son, of Franklin, of Lan^don, of Madison, and 
1 all the early fathers. Sir, could the Father of 
1 his Country awake from the tomb, and leave the 
1' rjuict retreats of his own Mount Vernon, and his 
1, stately form again revisit the national Capitol 



LIBRfiRY OF CONGRESS 



16 



bearing his name— could the sainted spirit of the 
immortal Jeiferson be reunited to the dust that 
now reposes amid the solitudes of Montic.ello, 
and as;ain mingle with the living, they would 
both be denounced by this same Democratic party 
with contumelious opprobriums; they would both 
be denounced as Black Republicans, Abolition- 
ists, traitors to this great Republic, which their 
wisdom and patriotism founded. 

Mr. Chairman, we are gravely told, in this 
House and other places, that if the Democratic 
party are defeated in the next presidential elec- 
tion, and the Republican party elect their candi- 
date to the presidential chair, the Union will be 
dissolved. Let me say to gentlemen on the other 
side of the House, not tauntingly, but respect- 
fully, in the face of your threat, we shall beat you 
if we can. If we succeed, (as I trust in God we 
shall,) then I say again, not to menace, but to 
warn you, Dlssoive this glorious Union if you dare 
do it. You have practiced this same game too 
long — you have " dissolved the Union" too many 
times before to disturb the repose or unsettle the 
nerves of the intelhgent, patriotic citizens of these 
thirty-one States. Gentlemen, "Othello's occu- 
pation's gone." Your thundering gasconade, 
that the "Union will be dissolved," has died 
away in harmless accents, and ceases to alarm 
even the fearful and timid. But, if gentlemen 
really desire to dissolve the Union, why not do 
something besides talk and threaten ? Why not 
begin— why not try the fearful experiment? You 
need not wait a day on the account of the Repub- 
lican party. We are as willing to meet you now 
as at any future time, and settle this question, if 
you want to try it. Yes, gentlemen, we will 
meet you upon this question whenever and where 
ever you present it. The Republicans of these 
United States, upon this issue, have but one flag, 
the "stars and stripes." Not one star upon its 
floating folds will they ever see bedimmed or 
blotted out — not one stripe disfigured by the law- 
less hand of treason. They have butone motto — 
the motto transmitted to the American people by 
the immortal .Tackson, " The Union— it must be 
preserved;" and, like the old hero of the Her- 
mitage, they arc, every man of them, ready to 
" sw'ear by the Eternal" it shall never perish at 
the hands of any party North or South. 

A friend some weeks since placed in my hands 
a pamphlet, containing the speeches by the dis- 
tinguished Senator from California, Mr. Wel- 
ler, and of three distinguished gentlemen belong- 
ing to this House— Colonel Orr of South Caro- 
lina, ex-Speaker Cobb of Georgia, and General 
Lane of Oregon— made in Concord, New Hamp- 
shire, prior to the last election in that State. Col- 
onel Orr near his closing remarks is reported to 
have said: 

"Roll back this swelling tide of Republicanism. If you 
desire to save the Union, you must overwlielm it." 

This sounds very much like Caleb Cushing's 
•'crushing out." The distinguished gentleman 
calls upon his political friends to " overwhelm 
Republicanism." Yes, gentlemen, if you "de- 
sire to save the Union, you must overwhelm it." 
But how did the descendants of " Molly Stark," 
the unterrified yeomanry of the glorious old 
granite State, respond to this call. Who was 
" overwhelmed" in New Hampshire? Was it 
the " swelling tide of Republicanism ?" No, sir ! 



011 898 281 2 



racy" — the 
remains of 



N( 
le^ 

thuw ....v.^ ..„., " "T "" ""°^ rty, led on 

by General Pierce — that was " overwhelmed." 
The honest people of that patriotic State " over- 
whelmed" them, buried them up, and with the 
funereal rites perished the last fading hopes of 
Franklin Pierce of a reelection to the Presidency. 
Who was "overwhelmed" in Rhode Island a 
few weeks since, and who in Connecticut a few 
days since ? Was it the " swelling tide of Repub- 
licanism ?" No, sir; it was this same " sectional 
Democracy" — a party that has gone so far South 
that it has even lost sight of the " North star." 

But, again, the Republicans are denounced as 
"Agitators! Agitators!!" Sir, who began this 
agitation? The very party who now denounce 
it. Yes, gentlemen Democrats, you fired " the 
faggot pile," and now, when its roaring flames 
send their ghastly, lurid glare in every direction 
all over the whole Union, you turn round and 
denounce your innocent neighbor with incendi- 
arism, when you yourselves apphed«the smoking 
torch. You have raised the wind, now you must 
" ride the whirlwind." 

But what party continues agitation upon the 
slavery question? Who sends message after 
message into both Houses of Congress, falsifying 
the great truths of history — denouncing the peo- 
ple of the free States, falsely charging them with 
numerous derelictions of duty? Who sends Gov- 
ernors to Kansas to enforce the brutal laws of a 
bogus Legislature upon the squatter sovereigns 
of diat Territory? What party is now moving 
heaven and earth to force slavery into Kansas 
against the will of the people of that devoted Ter- 
ritory, and in direct violation of an old compact 
to which both sections of the Union were a party ? 
I leave the people and the country to answer these 
questions. 

Mr. Chairman, we are deliberately told by the 
Administration party, that if the Missouri com- 
promise is restored and Kansas made free — that 
if the old compact of 1820 is substantially carried 
out — it "will be an end of the Union." You 
make the issue, gentlemen, we accept it. It is a 
part of the mission of the Republican party to 
make Kansas a free State; and gentlemen on the 
other side of the House have chosen Kansas as 
the great battle-ground of freedom, and there we 
meet you. The designs and purposes of the Re- 
publican party upon this vital question are like 
the " laws of the Medes and Persians," unalter- 
able. Our southern brethren, more than thirty 
years ago, for a consideration paid in hand, sol- 
emnly agreed that the vast and fertile regions of 
Kansas and Nebraska should forever he free ter- 
ritory; and we mean to hold you to the contract. 
The great Republican party has taken its posi- 
tion. Its banner has been unfurled, and now 
proudly floats in the breezes of heaven, while upon 
its folds are inscribed in golden capitals of living 

light — NO MORE EXTENSION OF THE FOOT-PRtNTS 
OF SLAVERY INTO FREE TERRITORY. ArOUlld this 

banner are rallying'the patriotic from all sections 
in the Union. 

But one spirit animates the great army of free- 
dom. Their watchword is ^^ Onward! Onward!" 
their battle cry the soul-stirring words of the im- 
mortal Henry — " Give me liberty, or give me 
death." 



